These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Starbase feedback

First post First post
Author
Sigras
Conglomo
#341 - 2014-07-11 16:16:54 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sigras wrote:
do we play the same game? this is the game where people will spend 6 months infiltrating an alliance in order to awox them.
This is the game where people spend years researching their battleship BPO to ME 350 to save 0.01%

Maybe.. I play the game where people consider all factors, effort, risk, rewards & costs.

Now 200m in an hour might seem very good, but remember that I used the worst case scenario. Highest fees, expensive hull, least amount of modules to online etc. In most cases, those will be labs or equipment/ammo/drone arrays. Fees on those are ridiculously low compared to this example. Usually people will build where the base cost index is much lower, thus the shenanigans save you a lot less. Also any decently armed POS will take 2-3 hours to arm all the batteries. Those 10 run jobs take about a day to complete so every day you will need to fly to the POS, offline/online/install jobs/offline/online.. every time. This seems insane to me.

you do realize that corps usually have more than one player each right?

additionally, I figure people wont even bother with onlining defenses unless under war dec. the issue is that you can almost instantly online different types of arrays meaning you can always get the max bonus no matter what you're making/researching.
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sigras wrote:
not being able to think up a good solution is a fantastic reason to scrap the whole thing... I dont want a crappy mechanic put into the game because the devs cant think of something better ... thats how crappy mechanics happen... Id rather not have the mechanic that to have it be utter crap!


I might actually agree with you on that one, but my point was that I personally haven't thought of any. Doesn't mean that others can't or it doesn't exist. In fact I thought of one while writing up this response to you.

Increase the time it takes to online labs/arrays, which would discourage their abuse. Eliminate the stacking bonus for capital, supercapital and possibly Advanced Large Ship Array.

well increasing the online time would fix the issue, but it would be a nerf of all other uses of those arrays.

I would much rather have them make a "cost reducer" mod of each array type so they could balance the cost and online time of the module for each array type.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#342 - 2014-07-11 16:28:37 UTC
Sigras wrote:
... the issue is that you can almost instantly online different types of arrays meaning you can always get the max bonus no matter what you're making/researching.

You are operating under the assumption that the array stacking bonuses are still going to happen. CCP announced very quietly in this Test Server Feedback forum thread thread that they are not happening.

This means that there is now zero motivation to have multiple labs/arrays up in a POS at once, beyond what you're using, and that POSes are less attractive because they won't get these additional reductions.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#343 - 2014-07-11 16:29:25 UTC
Bah, double post.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Marsan
#344 - 2014-07-11 17:36:32 UTC
Marsan wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


I thought it was corp management?


Really I would think that corp management needs to be fixed 1st as one of the major issues with POSes is corporate roles. You have to be a complete idiot to do industry in a POS that isn't a corporation of one beyond compression and refining. It's near impossible to give a member of a corp the ability to anything meaningful with a POS without opening the rest of the corp to major risk.



It fact the more I think about it. POSes and corporate roles are very tightly bound. It doesn't make a lot of sense to work on POSes in the current corp roles structure as convoluted and confining as they currently are. So you'd need to do both at once. Sadly Eve uses a agile development model which this sort of major undertaking is generally discouraged, which is why you saw a desire to replace POSes with deployable structures iteratively over a number of releases. (This appears to have stalled as we haven't see much movement there.) Maybe the new release format will let CCP put a team on corp roles, and POS for a year or so instead of devoting a release or 2 to POSes and Corps, but honestly I don't see them devoting the resources long enough to something only a small portion of the community uses. Which is sad because if POSes worked well, and had a low initial cost of entry it would be huge.

Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.

Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#345 - 2014-07-11 17:50:02 UTC
Sigras wrote:
you do realize that corps usually have more than one player each right?

More than one player yes, I was using that scenario assuming they don't all login at the same time. I did however forget about 1 person corps with lots of alts. In those situations, the abuse of the mechanic might be significant.

Sigras wrote:
additionally, I figure people wont even bother with onlining defenses unless under war dec. the issue is that you can almost instantly online different types of arrays meaning you can always get the max bonus no matter what you're making/researching.

Yeah I realized that. That def needs to be addressed.

Sigras wrote:

well increasing the online time would fix the issue, but it would be a nerf of all other uses of those arrays.

I would much rather have them make a "cost reducer" mod of each array type so they could balance the cost and online time of the module for each array type.


I like this idea. Not sure if CCP will pick up on it as there are less than two weeks before release. This would be better than nothing, even if it takes like a day to online those cost reducer modules. Hopefully whichever way they go, this will be only a temporary fix until full POS revamp happens.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#346 - 2014-07-11 18:06:46 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sigras wrote:
additionally, I figure people wont even bother with onlining defenses unless under war dec. the issue is that you can almost instantly online different types of arrays meaning you can always get the max bonus no matter what you're making/researching.

Yeah I realized that. That def needs to be addressed.

There are no more bonuses for having multiple labs/arrays online at once.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#347 - 2014-07-11 18:26:11 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sigras wrote:
additionally, I figure people wont even bother with onlining defenses unless under war dec. the issue is that you can almost instantly online different types of arrays meaning you can always get the max bonus no matter what you're making/researching.

Yeah I realized that. That def needs to be addressed.

There are no more bonuses for having multiple labs/arrays online at once.


We know bud. We're discussing whether they should bring them back or not.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#348 - 2014-07-11 18:30:34 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
We know bud. We're discussing whether they should bring them back or not.

Missed that part. Oops

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Sigras
Conglomo
#349 - 2014-07-11 19:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sigras wrote:
well increasing the online time would fix the issue, but it would be a nerf of all other uses of those arrays.

I would much rather have them make a "cost reducer" mod of each array type so they could balance the cost and online time of the module for each array type.


I like this idea. Not sure if CCP will pick up on it as there are less than two weeks before release. This would be better than nothing, even if it takes like a day to online those cost reducer modules. Hopefully whichever way they go, this will be only a temporary fix until full POS revamp happens.

agreed,

and I was thinking about a day online time...

I figure this will also fix the glut of labs/arrays problem because people could simply reprocess the extra arrays and make these new modules.
Meroa Buelle
Someone Else's Problem
#350 - 2014-07-11 19:44:29 UTC
Not sure whether this has been covered or not however , with the increase in cost to isotopes that will happen due to the jump fuel changes this means that the fuel block costs will increase. Therefore increasing the costs to run the POS, with the way the eve economy is for moon goo (ie ridiculous undercutting), this is likely going to result in a loss for anyone mining moons.

One way and by far the easiest way is to increase the cpu on the POS's to allow for 6 silo's, 4 harvesters and 2 simple reactors to be able to be run simultaneously, thats if people have a moon that has 4 resources on the moon and wish to make a profit from the moon if at all possible . Much easier than changing the cpu on each module for the dev teams.

Feel free to tear this view of POS's apart :)
Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#351 - 2014-07-11 20:41:08 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
If you seriously want POS's worked on, this is a great thing. The less useful they are, the less people rely on their functionality, the less micropatches they need and therefore the less impediments of doing a major overhaul.
I agree. It doesn't make much sense for CCP to throw in kudgy mechanics to try to create a justification for POS's now. Let POS usage go down as CCP predicted with the fuel changes. Consider introducing incentives for POS usage with the POS redesign after all the industry changes shake out.

That may help reduce Bittervet complaints that their game is being ruined when the POS release happens.
baltoxtdl
TheDarkLegion Inc
#352 - 2014-07-12 18:46:34 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Kenneth Skybound wrote:
Oh lovely, you actually misread what I posted. Brilliant. I know there are not going to be slots. Lack of slots as in slots are being removed.

The whole point of the original consideration of stacking bonuses was to handle the fact that otherwise, and without slots, only one of each industry posdule type is needed for a given area of use.

A lot of people do not use every single structure out there - industrialists specialise. That's how you profit, by being the better player at a small number of things, not flailing around with a lot. Almost any group considering and desiring to use the majority of industry posdules would do so either in separate starbases or non-concurrently already.

And that whole "silent delay for up to an hour" is amazing. I mean, it's once again laughing in the face of everyone who has ever worked with starbases and got the mental capacity to understand a one hour cycle. Even the consideration of "Oh, this person has to wait an hour for changes to take place." Industry, as you have said yourself, is about manufacture and research in bulk and at a large scale. One hour is a long time to a frigate pilot firing at another frigate pilot. One hour is a short hop around for any major industrialist as the overwhelming majority of jobs exceed that time and a non-trivial amount exceed it by orders of magnitude.

This is hand waving at it's very best. You don't cancel an entire section of content because some people cannot fathom things happening on a 1 hour cycle. Would you remove the rest of starbase mechanics affected by this 1 hour cycle until it can be very carefully presented to the layest of men? Or would you leave the content in to be used with a note in a description or two explaining there is such a cycle, while working on a way to make it clearer in a later patch?





Changes only taking effect on a long, silent cycle is a microcosm of everything that's wrong with starbases, and we no longer operate in a mindset where that sort of functionality is considered acceptable.

The one-hour tick also poses major problems to any straightforward attempts to get around online/offline shenanigans. Yes, it's relatively straightforward to specify solutions, but in practical terms it did not look likely that we were going to be able to fix this prior to release.

It's also an additional source of complexity and confusion in a system that's already got a lot of moving parts.

Balanced against those downsides, the upsides are that a) it offers a very small additional build cost reduction (this can be accomplished in other ways if the actual cost/benefit is an underlying problem), b) it prevents a market glut of labs, c) it adds a bit more decision-making to tower setup and d) it makes research towers visually more distinctive. If we can get a near-instantaneous update easily, the small cost of adding this feature is just about justified by the upsides. Where that's not practical, it no longer justifies itself, so we cut it (less than an hour's work, including testing).

We want to address b and possibly c; if a is a problem we can tackle that through other means; d is unlikely to have effort invested in it with a fuller rework on the cards.

If you feel like current starbase mechanics are entirely acceptable to you and you'd be happy with more in the same vein, then you've probably got a competitive advantage there against many other players that I'm sure you're leveraging to the fullest, but it's not a development position that we are intending to take.


The part where you make mistake.

You have clear vision of Industry, then you move to make it happen, BUT, you have broken feature (POS), which makes you brake your original Industry vision to adopt it to broken feature (POS). And EVE is full of these scenarios. PLS stop making those, eventually you ll end up with totally broken game.

Get your priorities straight, get POSes fixed, delay this, we will wait. Stop making half baked stuff in EVE.
Sienna Toth
Pulsar Phisics Shipyards
#353 - 2014-07-13 02:29:57 UTC
This CRIUS release is going to trash the EvE economy. I feel sorry for the poor smucks holding POS/array/battery BPO's because that market is toast. Fuel market is about to implode with people powering off towers. That will cause PI market to tank. Lack of resources will mean people can buy the ships. Cant but the ships, then the mineral market tanks.

Good news is Ice prices are about to implode so jump costs wont be as bad as the Jump Nerf intended.

I think they pretty much couldn't screw this up worse.

8 Days...gonna be interesting
Josclyn Verreuil
Dark 0rder.
VINDICTIVE
#354 - 2014-07-13 07:51:28 UTC
Sienna Toth wrote:
This CRIUS release is going to trash the EvE economy. I feel sorry for the poor smucks holding POS/array/battery BPO's because that market is toast. Fuel market is about to implode with people powering off towers. That will cause PI market to tank. Lack of resources will mean people can buy the ships. Cant but the ships, then the mineral market tanks.

Good news is Ice prices are about to implode so jump costs wont be as bad as the Jump Nerf intended.

I think they pretty much couldn't screw this up worse.

8 Days...gonna be interesting


Did you have something constructive to add, or were you just intending to rant at no particular issue other than the falling sky?
Aischa Montagne
Blut-Klauen-Clan
#355 - 2014-07-13 22:55:25 UTC
Sienna Toth wrote:
This CRIUS release is going to trash the EvE economy. I feel sorry for the poor smucks holding POS/array/battery BPO's because that market is toast. Fuel market is about to implode with people powering off towers. That will cause PI market to tank. Lack of resources will mean people can buy the ships. Cant but the ships, then the mineral market tanks.

Good news is Ice prices are about to implode so jump costs wont be as bad as the Jump Nerf intended.

I think they pretty much couldn't screw this up worse.

8 Days...gonna be interesting

I dont agree. The POS will be as uselfull or useless as it is today.
The major difference is if a NPC Station is better or worse it will depend on more local factors.
I realy like this Idea. Gives my clans Indu Opteration various Option to act on our market.

I think this is a very fundamental step. And it is a acceptable desicion not to introduce stacking modul Bonuses. I think at least in the beginning we will have enough options to choose from to support our strategy.
A stacking bonus can be still introduced afterwards. If so I would love to see similar option on NPC stations. A NPC station is a good thing to have. And haveing something similar to save costs would keep them in the race. You could introduce a skill or take the standing to make NPC Station kompetetive against a POS. Choice is good!

I am a bit carefull about the target PCOS (player Owned Stations) in high, which seems to be the vision. Even in the long run, I feel it would be boring to push the NPC corps out. It simply needs more Spice (Like your Corp have to allign himself with the Faction). But I think it is a long time to go there, and maybe there are other interesting Ideas changeing the game.

I like the changes so far. *thumbup*
Pronoes
Gallente Federation
#356 - 2014-07-13 23:30:26 UTC
Read a LOT of information in the last 2 hours, which to be honest I'm struggling to digest (and frankly swallow a few bits) but I do have one query. It's probably already been answered but I don't want to trawl again.

Industrial activities in POS's, research / copying / invention / manufacturing, get the bonus of being 'quicker' than NPC stations, and the 2% reduction in materials required. They also do not suffer from taxation. This I understand.

Am I right in thinking that the "install cost" or global cost scaley thingymajigs, WILL be present in POS's? So I would have to pay an install fee at my own POS to manufacture stuff?

Also, if this globally scaled install cost bollocks works as I think (roughly, the more industrialised a system, the cheaper it is to do stuff) then an industrial POS in dead 0.0 or an empty WH will have to face the maximum costs associated with installing a job?
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#357 - 2014-07-14 00:32:39 UTC
Pronoes wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the "install cost" or global cost scaley thingymajigs, WILL be present in POS's? So I would have to pay an install fee at my own POS to manufacture stuff?
Yes.

Pronoes wrote:
Also, if this globally scaled install cost bollocks works as I think (roughly, the more industrialised a system, the cheaper it is to do stuff) then an industrial POS in dead 0.0 or an empty WH will have to face the maximum costs associated with installing a job?
You've got it backwards. Think of the installation "utilization" cost as a congestion charge: the more industrial activity in *system* (relative to the universe), the higher the charge. A rolling 28-day average is used to smooth out the rate change.

MDD
Bitter Fremlin
Heimatar Enhanced Fleet Industries
#358 - 2014-07-14 10:42:06 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
[quote=Bitter Fremlin]If the install costs for research jobs get to the same order of magnitude of the associated fuel costs for POS research, POSes will remain viable for at least lower-end BPs (due to the risk factor). I think everyone can agree to that.

Given the current state of the fuel market, and what testing I've done on SiSi, I severely doubt this will happen, and sincerely hope that it doesn't.

"Same order of magnitude" is only necessary if only 1 10-slot researcher is using the POS. That model may work now because of lab-slot restrictions and the benefits of queue-jumping the NPC stations, but post-Crius it will probably need changing.

There's no doubt that anyone using a research POS now will need to rethink. "Pure" POSes may not be viable because of scaling -- you will probably be better off mixing research and industry since neither's jobs will count against the other (if I'm understanding it right, the job types are segregated to at least that level).

And it's disappointing that there is no direct time component in job costs, with a POS's time reduction mainly increasing throughput. I say "mainly" because there should be some indirect cost benefits, since quicker jobs means less per-job increase in a system's fraction of global job hours. BUT quicker jobs means a lower multi-run discount, which may cancel or even overturn the SCI benefit. But obvious room for a cost-tweak based on the facility's time reduction here, should you be proved right and the Devs need to move the goalposts in the favour of POS use.

Quoting from the "Price of Change" dev-post -- "...the actual math is very straightforward." Maybe -- but predicting the impact of these changes is, IMO, anything but.
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers
Empire of Arcadia
#359 - 2014-07-14 17:57:40 UTC
Pronoes wrote:

Am I right in thinking that the "install cost" or global cost scaley thingymajigs, WILL be present in POS's? So I would have to pay an install fee at my own POS to manufacture stuff?


I know I've not said anything good about Crius in this thread, but I should add there are really spectacularly damned good changes coming down the pipe with this one. A pricing system for build/research jobs which will self-scale with the economy, real incentives for people to have at least a crappy little POS in some backwater system somewhere, much-clarified information for newbies who are interested in getting started in industry, etc.

The one thing (and it's kind of a big thing) which I still do not like is the inability of a corp to have people pay for POS usage in the same way they pay in stations and outposts. It's been suggested by a couple of people that tying the fees into the base corp tax rate would be a good idea ... and I agree with that. This wouldn't even need a new interface so it seems like it'd be relatively easy to code a withdrawal from personal wallet which sends to a corp wallet at that set rate. Hell, while we're at it we might even consider the impact of introducing a skill to reduce NPC costs for installing jobs in the same way we can reduce PI costs. Maybe even make it the same skill with an additional bonus and a tweaked name for accuracy?

Remove T2 BPO's or make them inventable at extreme cost.

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#360 - 2014-07-16 21:31:35 UTC
• Control Tower may now be anchored in 0.8+ solar systems

Not much of a land grab rush on Sisi eh Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF